Very Computer

t>...

It is the absence of motive which explains why this hasn't happened. It
simply would not do IBM any good.

Quote:>It would be soooooo cool if IBM would open source what it could of
>OS/2 for the Linux community. As it is, they might just give some
>support for the GUI efforts that are already floating about.

Quote:>If Apple's stock price tanks again, you might seen Sun grow more
>interested in it and eventually give the upper levels of OSX a Java 2
>like license.

>I still think a Linux hardware company like VA Research could go
>public and then buy Apple with a high stock price...then open source
>the parts of OSX that Linux needs.

I think it extremely unlikely that any privately held corporation has that
kind of financial clout. Let's be realistic, shall we? Pipe dreams are down
the hall, second door on the left.

By the way, what you're saying is that these guys should spend that $8
billion simply to give away what they bought. Just what do they get for
their immense investment?

Quote:>I predict the next 100 billion fortune will be made by the company
>that gives Linux a newbie friendly install/GUI.

>-l
>and I predict that either Apple or IBM will have given Linux the
>newbie "kings to the kingdom" (a GUI) by the end of the year.

PM was developed by IBM labs in England and I believe is owned by IBM.  When MS
and IBM split they each took there own pieces and said goodbye.  I **Strongly**
suspect MS would have as much interest in PM as Clinton having photos of him and
Monica alone together. WPS was developed after the split and IBM owns all the
patients on the technologies.  WPS is great and I miss it -- been doing Java on
NT since leaving OS/2 (worked with it from OS/2 ver 1.1 to warp 4).  I
***REALLY*** hope pieces of it survive it was a great OS but not likely to ever
make it in the mainstream.  Too Bad.

James Kelley

--- snip ---

Quote:>I predict the next 100 billion fortune will be made by the company
>that gives Linux a newbie friendly install/GUI.

Now, if someone plopped a half-baked clone of the WPS on Linux... I could be
switched over in a blink. What I think should, could, might happen... is that
some bright young programming talent may cobble together a way for Linux to
run LX/NE (OS/2 resources) natively. That, would be tremendous.

--

/--------------------\
| Jerry McBride      |

\--------------------/

If only we could get Apple to hate M$ as much as IBM does, then we'd
have MacOS X on Linux by the end of the year. IBM has the motive and
the means to make WPS open source (or at least part of it) but it
doesn't apparently have the opportunity (or does it?)

It would be soooooo cool if IBM would open source what it could of
OS/2 for the Linux community. As it is, they might just give some
support for the GUI efforts that are already floating about.

If Apple's stock price tanks again, you might seen Sun grow more
interested in it and eventually give the upper levels of OSX a Java 2
like license.

I still think a Linux hardware company like VA Research could go
public and then buy Apple with a high stock price...then open source
the parts of OSX that Linux needs.

I predict the next 100 billion fortune will be made by the company
that gives Linux a newbie friendly install/GUI.

-l
and I predict that either Apple or IBM will have given Linux the
newbie "kings to the kingdom" (a GUI) by the end of the year.
---
Wanna debate this post, realtime? --> ICQ#: 9393354 * "UN-altered
REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT information
is ENCOURAGED" -- REMcE

?In article

ews.net>,


?>
?
?--- snip ---
?
?>I predict the next 100 billion fortune will be made by the company
?>that gives Linux a newbie friendly install/GUI.
?>
?
?I use and work with OS/2 and I have tried Linux. I decided after my
flirt with
?Linux to stay with OS/2. My reasoning was... I'm dedicated to the WPS
and the
?applications that run on it.
?
?Now, if someone plopped a half-baked clone of the WPS on Linux... I
could be
?switched over in a blink. What I think should, could, might happen...
is that
?some bright young programming talent may cobble together a way for
Linux to
?run LX/NE (OS/2 resources) natively. That, would be tremendous.

I know what you mean Jerry; there's nothing like the wps anywhere.  
Really, all you guys running macs, windows, linux, x, etc just don't
know what you're missing... all those things are good and have their
place, but there is no desktop to compare to the warp desktop.

If the wps got ported to linux, I'd be over there in no time... but I
think that threading would have to be better implemented on linux
first.  Plus it would need a file system that had resource forking in
it a la hpfs (and hfs, too... we have it on pc too mac people!  Just
not if you're running windows...).  Still, a unix with the wps and
good management tools would just be out of sight!

In fact, for all those unix guys that secretly want to see linux take
over the desktop, I think having the wps on linux would be the way to
do it.  I'm not a programmer, but I do have some ideas about how
something like that could work...

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://207.96.209.68:8000/
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jaft at adan.kingston.net
Montral PQ Canada

WPS seems nice, but I think I prefer NextStep. What was so special about it
?

Quote:> If the wps got ported to linux, I'd be over there in no time... but I
> think that threading would have to be better implemented on linux
> first.  Plus it would need a file system that had resource forking in
> it a la hpfs (and hfs, too... we have it on pc too mac people!  Just
> not if you're running windows...).  Still, a unix with the wps and
> good management tools would just be out of sight!

As to resource forking - having 1 file where 2 will do is not the Unix Way.
More seriously - you can fake it up quite easily using hidden files.
Appletalk file servers for Unix do this. I've never really grasped its
utility.

Simon

PS. NTFS actaully has a general facility to do multi-streamed files. Its
one of those rarely used features that are in NT but not Win9x

?> I know what you mean Jerry; there's nothing like the wps anywhere.
?> Really, all you guys running macs, windows, linux, x, etc just don't
?> know what you're missing... all those things are good and have their
?> place, but there is no desktop to compare to the warp desktop.
?
?This is interesting. I used OS/2 for a while and I was not *that*
?impressed. I scrapped it after I repartitioned my drive and had trouble
?with the drive letter change after which I though "duh!" and got rid of it.
?
?WPS seems nice, but I think I prefer NextStep. What was so special about it
??

Well, I've never actually used NextStep, so I can't rally comment; I
hear it's a really nice system though... What I like about the wps is
that the interface is very consistent.  Very consistent.  Windows is a
hodge-podge of weird and custom methodologies for performing similar
tasks thanks to its badly thought out interface.  Also, it's very
powerful and flexible.  For example, there's no winzip clone under os2
because with a couple of program objects and unzip.exe and zip.exe,
you can simply add all the functionality to the popup menu of every
zipfile on your system.  You could also select a folder and zip it, if
you wanted to implement that.  It's very easy to do; the same could be
done with gzip with no problem, though I haven't actually done that
here.

Also, the wps and the command line are very well integrated; esp. if
you know anything about rexx.

?
?> If the wps got ported to linux, I'd be over there in no time... but I
?> think that threading would have to be better implemented on linux
?> first.  Plus it would need a file system that had resource forking in
?> it a la hpfs (and hfs, too... we have it on pc too mac people!  Just
?> not if you're running windows...).  Still, a unix with the wps and
?> good management tools would just be out of sight!
?
?Threading on Linux is fine, it just doesn't get used by many GUI
?applications. Most toolkits require that only 1 thread talk to the GUI,
?which is sensible enough, but seems to put people off.

Well, I'm not a programmer, so I can't really comment on that; I'm
largely going by what I've heard some of the warp programmers say
about that in some of the other os2.* fora.

?As to resource forking - having 1 file where 2 will do is not the Unix Way.
?More seriously - you can fake it up quite easily using hidden files.
?Appletalk file servers for Unix do this. I've never really grasped its
?utility.

The idea is that you can store extra information about the file; in
warp they're called extended attributes.  It's what permits the shell
to have many many prioritizable associations wrt data
files/applications.  Also, it permits "document-centric" computing.  
For example, my newsreader is basically a glorified folder.  Each
newsgroup is a glorified folder within the newsreader folder.  Each of
those contain data files; the header file and the post file itself are
tied together.  It could be nicer; I wouldn't mind the option of
switching the newsreader from its default "details" view to an "tree"
view, but I guess the programmer didn't want to do it that way...
though browsing all groups is done that way; otoh, it's one of the
best newsreader systems I've ever seen wrt interface; it is really
stunning.  I was stunned when I first tried it.  It's called ProNews,
by Panacea.  The only problem is that the programmer has apparently
had a breakdown of some kind, so the program is currently orphaned...

Anyway, I would think that the way to implement resource forking on
unix would be to have the unix-style attributes (user, group, etc)
with resource forking.  By maintaining backwards compatibility you
wouldn't have to worry about messing up existing software, and you
would allow whichever shell you're running locally to keep a lot of
data about the file handy.  I would imagine that while it wouldn't be
trivial to do, it shouldn't be spectacularly difficult either.

The fact that the "shell fanatics" are us warpers, mac users, and now
beos users thanks to the shell enhancements that resource forking
provides and permits might tell you something about it's utility; esp.
wrt document-centric computing.  I don't think it's coincidental that
all of these people refuse to give up their boxes thanks to the power
of the shells that are available to them because of just this feature
of their file system... despite the fact that software is nonexistent
for Be, has always been hard to get for Warp, and doesn't perform as
efficiently on MacOS.  For one thing, a lot of apps that are standard
in Windows-land are irrelevant to me, because my main shell (as
opposed to my XWindows shell, or my cmdshl, or my tcl/tk shell;), the
wps, contains features that let me implement them easily using
commonly available freeware tools.

?PS. NTFS actaully has a general facility to do multi-streamed files. Its
?one of those rarely used features that are in NT but not Win9x

There but not used, thanks to the platform inconsistencies of windows,
and the need to write to the 9x platform, since it's the one that has
the market.  Hell, the main shell in NT (explore.exe) doesn't even use
it; what good is that?  It might as well not be there as far as I can
tell, unless maybe you're writing a custom vertical application for
some enterprise foolhardy enough to try to shoehorn NT into
everything.  I suspect that a system based on UNIX on the backend and
warp on the frontend would work a lot better and be much cheaper to
run in the long run.  For example, do you know what the CID
installation utility is?  It allows the deployment of software to
thousands of warp clients simultaneously from one central location.  
The time and labour savings are obvious...

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://207.96.209.68:8000/
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jaft at adan.kingston.net
Montral PQ Canada

I rather like the Archimedes solution - all GUI applications were
directories containing all the required resources, setup files etc. Not so
good on a multi-user machine, but then I suspect neither are resource
forks.

Simon

Both have one disadvantage: file-loading is slowed down, when
many resources are required. I don't consider this a limitation,
but it is a marketing issue to many people, that applications
should start up "nearly at once".

Greetings,

  Bernhard.

--
Bernhard Scholz         http://www.peanuts.org/